Well, there are several key questions that seem to be surfacing and they are not really speculation. While a little aggressive, the rate of descent was not anything to get excited about as a cause, per se. It appears controlled hence CFIT. The question there is why? A comparison to an L-1011 crash in Florida back in the 70's has been drawn. In that case, all 3 in the cockpit got involved trying to handle a gear problem, failed to notice that autopilot had kicked off and that they were losing altitude. By the time it was noticed, it was too late to recover. The other thing noted is that there was no impact fire and explosion. CFIT and lack of fire are not really speculation. The boxes will tell us why.

That leak is starting to become a flood. By the time officialdom gets around to confirming it, it will be old news. If it turns out to be suicide, all this will disappear PDQ. If something else, speculation will run a pretty good while.

Apparently the aircraft did a lot of short flights in its 24 years of service, with an average of 5.3 flights per day. That might have caused structural problems, but, as you say, the black boxes will tell the story.

There problem was a high number of cycles and low time in a corrosion rich environment. The main and biggest problem with that particular incident was differential metals corrosion and that flight alone is why we have the Aging Aircraft Program...

Yes and no... Once an a/c reaches a certain number of cycles then they can no longer fly in the US. It is different for different aircraft.. I know some a/c time out after 80,000 hours or 80,000 cycles, which ever comes first.

You could say that... It is to prevent a similar fate of "Aloha Airlines Flight 243" where they blew their top... These planes can only be pressurized and depressurized so many times before they pop... Just like a balloon... It is fact that stretching the metal continually over time it is going to eventually get weaker and blow its top so to speak... When this happens, very rarely is there a good ending... That is today why we have an "Aging Aircraft Program"

Think about it Sparkie, the rivets were designed for tension, not shear! All the stretchy, contracty stuff causes more shear than tension stress on the rivets. When was the last time one didn't fail at a rivet line?

Yeah, it was an Aloha Air Boeing 737. Turns out, I think it was way above recommended cycle count. Here is what Wiki says about that. There is more that you can just Google.

"While the airframe had only accumulated 35,496 flight hours prior to the accident, those hours were over 89,680 flight cycles (a flight cycle is defined as a takeoff and a landing), owing to its use on short flights.[1]"

Dear friend , please allow some space for my quarter cent . Like you wrote about A320 earlier also using the word "sturdy" . We all know and understand that this simple but important word is to be use in a relative way . A/C 380/747 are as sturdy as 320/727 ! But we all know the difference of this "sturdiness" . Long haul A/C if put on continuous hopping flight or if hopping type A/C are put on long haul with continuous hops both may shorten their lives . Reasons are better known to and better understood by you all , past masters of your subject . And some of you have reiterated some of these factors also so vividly and so candidly . I hail you all .

Well, in generalities, I see where you are coming from. In reality, AC are certified for hours as well as cycle count(landings/takeoff is a cycle) and in that respect, it makes no difference on long or short haul. The U.S. has put an upper limit now on older aircraft, known as the Aging Aircraft Act. I have attached a link for you and we can go from there.

I think this link might be a strong clue. There was an A321 that experienced something similar but was able to pull out and land safely. The cause in that airplane and the reason for this EASA AD was the Angle of Attack tubes froze up giving the airplane false information.

Obviously, there are no concrete facts to suggest this airplane experienced the same issues as the one in November, but there are some similarities.

I am no expert in any of this, but based on what was published and a similar event happened within the last 6 month, this seems to me a pathway to go down.

I haven't looked at it myself but somewhere on here someone has said that they did and that was pretty well standard, as that most of the previous flights did the same. I think it is just coincidental that it came about the same time.

HAL already seems part way there, look at Tony Smith's post below (from about 15 hours earlier than this post) on the override procedure for humans to regain control. Simple in a simulator when you know how but what about in a gale swirling around a locked, depressurizing cockpit when your window just busted out and the FO is bleeding all over you from being hit in the head by debris.

Its not just in aviation; some years ago one of the US Navy's latest anti-aircraft cruisers, which is supposed to protect an entire aircraft carrier battle group, had to be towed back to Norfolk when the engines quit and refused to restart. The cold water intake sensor had broken and in the absence of a cooling water signal the computer had decided that they couldn't run the engines without cooling else they might be damaged. The actual cooling system was functioning properly, only a sensor was down, but there was no way to override the computer. In a combat situation the group would have lost its primary AA protection. I think there was also a similar case for a cruise ship full of kids off the coast of Alaska or Washington State in a storm a few years ago, which left the ship rolling around in bad conditions, and the Chief Engineer having to rip out wiring to bypass the computer, but I can't remember the exact details of that one.

We need to build in simple bypasses or overrides to anything controlled by silicon, and with the hydraulics you suggest run a redundant system through the ceiling (L-1011) and not just the floor (DC10).

Google translate: Simply sorrow for all the victims of this flight , Mitt feeling for all members , but also mid- feeling towards the mid workers of Garmanwings - speechless about the fact and powerlessness over this tragedy in the Alps - Hope for full enlightenment -

a dreadful day for me as a fan of aviation - in mourning Mathias Böttcher

1.The sad, but possible truth to the Germanwings fiasco is that even if the Captain had been able to bash his way back into the cockpit of that A-320 he may not have been able to save the airplane.

If the Airbus "computer" decided the Captain was, let's say, commanding a three G pullup to clear the mountain tops it would not have let him do it and the aircraft would have impacted the top of the mountain instead of the valley mountain side.

A Boeing, on the other hand, would have been over-G'd with a three G pullup, a wing spar might have been bent and the aircraft would certainly have required an inspection, but the Captain would have had complete control of the aircraft instead of some "computer" and 150 lives may have been spared.

2. That Germanwings co-pilot would NEVER have been hired by any US carrier, period. Too little experience, "experience" that quite possibly would have weeded him out of the gene pool way before he even had an opportunity to apply for an airline job.

3. In my thirty-seven year airline career I flew with plenty of guys who were probably "clinically depressed." Guys going through divorce, guys with wives with cancer, guys with kids with severe drug problems or in jail for one thing or another, married guys whose girlfriends were pregnant. You name it. Airline pilots are no different than any other cross section of professions.

The huge difference was that those guys knew how to separate their personal lives from their professional lives.

Dave, Dave, Dave, you're my man. Your #3 is right on. Don't bring your personal life into the cockpit. You have to "compartmentalize" and leave it at home. One scenario I have used in class during CRM (I have taught recurrent and newbys) is......you're on a 4 day trip. On the second day, your spouse tells you that she's filing for divorce. What do you do? I actually relished in my flying because it took me out of the mundane world and into a place that I loved. I retired with 14000 hours of love and hate but I really loved every minute. Fly the jet! It's a vacation sometimes.

Most cogent assessment of the 300 some odd on this thread, and I concur with Peter on the love hate thing after 35 aviating years, but one thing I will tell you that I believe is, They don't make em like they used to, and I ain't talking about the equipment!

Yup, today, fly a 172 for few hours, get sim training and next thing you know your flying as a co-pilot on a complex jet, makes sense to me. There is no substitute for experience, and w/ or w/out a mental problem, this guy as w/ many others does not belong in a complex jet w/ his obvious lack of experience. Still in shock

Foreign carriers, with the possible exceptions of NO ONE, do not have the quality of pilots that US carriers have. They simply do not have a source for them and with the surge of airline flying this problem will get more critical.

They do not have extensive Air Forces, Navies or Armies with pilots who then go the airlines to fly. They do not have charter operators, commuter carriers or any of the other myriad of other means by which pilots in the US gain the experience to advance to the cockpits of major carriers.

The philosophy of Airbus (and it was a conscious, corporate decision), therefore, was to design their airplanes to cater to these very low time, inexperienced pilots. The Bus is meant to be flown on autopilot -- as much as possible. Therefore, these low time pilots, then, never gain any real stick and rudder time throughout their careers unless they fly on the outside -- which is very expensive due to the high price of fuel. That's why many fly gliders...better than nothing, I guess.

They get hired by the guys who trained them and then, theoretically, get OJT while in the right seat being tutored by a Captain (who came from the same background) who may, or may not be capable of mentoring a neophyte pilot. My guess is that a lot of them are simply "gear raisers and radio operators."

In the US, many new airline pilots (as well as many not-so-new pilots) are still flying in the Air Guard or Reserve and sharpening their skills outside of airline flying. Many fly on their days off in other aircraft sharpening their skills. I flew F-84F's and F-100C's in the Guard for a number of years early in my airline career and built and flew a bi-winged aerobatic plane to hone those stick and rudder skills. None of this is available to foreign pilots, or only available to a very, very few.

With the retirement of older pilots -- who always had "hand flying" experience due to the fact that aircraft were not designed during their days to be computer dependent -- we are running into a new generation of pilots (this is now occurring in the US as well) who really have little stick and rudder experience. That may be all well and good when things go the way they should. But, when it turns pear-shaped and a pilot has to rely on basic flying skills he has BIG problems.

Also, years of experience prior to gaining a seat at a major carrier exposes a pilot to peer and superior review and weeds out the weak dicks along the way, either by natural attrition or simply being fired due to any number of causes, ie. lack of ability, instability or the greatest equalizer of all -- impact with the ground, etc.

This self policing situation generally does not exist in other countries.

In addition, their training slots and subsequent airline jobs, in many cases, go to the son's of the "privileged" classes, the son's of the wealthy, the son's of the "connected." Kids who really have, generally speaking, no concept of what it is to work and sacrifice for anything; entitled kids who believe they are "owed" the job.

Their whole system is fraught with failure from their pilot training to their airplanes...but, welcome to the new world of foreign airline flying.

So what, as a passenger do you do to insure survivability?

1. Never fly on an Airbus unless you have absolutely no other choice.2. Never fly on a foreign carrier unless you have absolutely no other choice.

While I have some sympathy with your perspective on the Airbus, I totally disagree with a couple of your statements :

1. "That's why many fly gliders...better than nothing, I guess."

Please don't disparage glider pilots. British and German glider pilots have to learn a lot more about all aspects of aviation than US powered-flight pilots. Glider pilots don't have an engine to climb them out of trouble and when they run out of lift they have to land. So they have to be much more situationally, and locationally aware during all stages of flight. One example is take-off emergencies : it had been my experience that cable breaks on winch launches were far more common than powered-flight engine failures (which I've never experienced). From the take-off roll onwards glider pilots have to be planning where and how to put it down safely, and on a winch take off and climb, its from a nose high attitude part way down the runway. Weather knowledge and awareness is far more critical, gliders can't just turn around and head the other way. The only unsafe glider operations I've witnessed have been towed operations in the USA. One particularly dangerous US tow pilot started his roll on the grass beside the runway where I was just about to flare a Warrior. I had called position on unicom thoughout the pattern, including a direct reference to "tow pilot at New Garden", but he was not listening to the radio and the American wingholder had never been instructed in his responsibilities.

It was my experience that glider clubs in the UK were frequently populated by relatively unwealthy but extremely knowledgeable enthusiasts who spent all day on the field sharing the work on the winch operation so that they could get a few launches. Many Americans just show up and pay a tow pilot.

I witnessed some "professional" US pilots who didn't even learn the rules where they were operating. In the Persian Gulf in the late 1970s some TWA pilots were not aware there was no night VFR and would argue with ATC when their call to cancel their flight plan was denied.

2. You said "Never fly on a foreign carrier unless you have absolutely no other choice".

It has been my experience that British Airways flight and cabin crew are far more professional, and adhere much more rigidly to safe practices, than some US airline personnel. In one case I was a pax on a Northwest 727 from KMSP to KFAR where the stews were clustered together at the rear, chatting, all the way from pushback to takeoff roll, not checking seatbelts and completely ignoring the PA, including the instruction to "prepare for takeoff". As the roll started a couple of them frantically ran through the cabin slamming the overhead bin doors. We were airborne before they got to their seats. While some BA flight and cabin staff may have appeared somewhat arrogant I have never seen them display unprofessional or dangerous behavior.

Whenever possible I choose to fly BA over any US carrier.

I will withhold my perspectives on the demonstrated incompetence of (some) US National Guard pilots, but they do seem to periodically shoot up their own Marines, and allied ground forces, strafe a column of tractors pulling refugees on trailers because they "resembled BTRs", shoot down a Blackhawk they positively identified as a Hind, and even discard an A10 canopy while reaching for their sunglasses.

Going off on that tangent, I think that as far as passenger experience quality goes, foreign airlines do it best. In the United States, airlines are too concerned with making a large profit, and as long as they are able to keep a pretty consistent monopoly on the market, they will continue to do whatever they please.

This being said, U.S. airlines certainly do have a superior flight record comparatively to international carriers. This is due to many things, but mainly because the airline/aviation infrastructure in the U.S. has been around longer, and therefore, has had time to adjust to what government officials feel are the best, safest operating standards. The whole "two crew members in the cockpit at all times" thing has been around since at least 9/11 in the US, but in Europe, there hasn't really been a strong motivation to implement this policy until now. Hopefully, airlines in Europe will catch onto the policies in the United States that allow it to consistently come out on top for airline safety, having the least amount of air-to-air incidents, and the most rigorous application process for becoming certified to operate on the flight deck.

Whenever they do, if they do, switch over to U.S. styled policy-making, hopefully it won't have a lasting impact on their impeccable customer experience. :)

RIP to those who passed away in the accident, and good luck to them as they move on to the next hurdle of the universe.

Had an interesting conversation today with a young guy I met at the cigar store I own. He is thirty four years old and just hired on with Delta Airlines.

Fifteen years ago he joined the local Air Guard unit and was a wrench on the F-16's here while he completed his education. Ten years ago he went to USAF pilot training through the ANG program but with another Air Guard unit flying KC 135's.

The past ten years he has been flying the KC-135 all over the earth AND flying a Bombardier Global Express for a private family out of Chicago -- again all over the world.

You could not find a more qualified airline new hire -- remember, he is thirty four years old.

He said that all the majors were averaging 70-75% ex-military pilots in their new hire programs and the rest were coming from regionals with years of experience.

When I hired on in '66, 100% of my new hire class was ex-military.

Absolutely no one would have the balls to show up at any US carrier today with two hundred and fifty hours of flying time and expect to be shown anything but the door.

As for sailplane experience? I would imaging that would be a bit like going to bed with a hooker; fun while your are doing it, but not something you would want to tell your friends about.

Not to in any way diminish the accomplishments of Sully and his event. But, I seriously doubt that any competent airline pilot would have anything other than the same result. The "float plane and glider experience" was not an issue.

After all there was really no other real alternative but to land in the river.

I instructed, during my thirty seven year career, as a pilot check airman and simulator instructor (among other things like FAA designee, etc), hundreds of pilots for my airline. One of the exercises I always gave them was to snap shot them in a simulator to a position 100 miles east of LAX at 31,000 in VFR conditions and shut down their engines (unable to restart) and tell them to land at LAX, any runway, their choice.

I never had one man fail the exercise, ever. Were they all pretty? No, but they were all survivable and stopped on the runway.

LAX runways are 200 feet wide and roughly 10,000 feet long (don't remember exactly). The Hudson river was five miles long at that point and a half mile wide, albeit wet. Rescue craft were there in minutes.

Any of the men I trained, with or without glider experience, should have been able to do the same thing.

Airliners are not gliders with glide ratios of 40 to 1, but they will glide when slowed to their best lift/drag speed a long, long way. The secret is the speed and even that can be played with to the pilot's advantage depending on conditions.

David, that may very well be so as we all know that normally a plane, contrary to popular opinion, just does not fall out of the sky when unpowered. That said, Sully himself gave credit to that experience being able to help him land as he did.

I know some gamers came out with a simulation online where people could try to land on the Hudson and some people succeeded and some failed. But, I have never heard of any test situation of real pilots in a real simulator trying to duplicate Sully's landing and fail, or otherwise.

That subject has been discussed in a number of forums. That it has not come to your attention yet in no way detracts from that.

A quick google search "pilots fail Simulation of hudson airbus landing" found the following in short order.http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703612804575222482042335978http://www.wired.com/2010/05/ntsb-makes-recommendations-after-miracle-on-the-hudson-investigation/

The first is interesting that pilots expecting the scenario did a successful RTB. As they say, the first one is genius, the rest are engineeering.

I believe we Americans can safely (generally) differentiate between British airmanship and that which is found in Germany. Like US carriers, British carriers have not suffered an accident in some time. While Lufthansa had a sterling reputation until now, Mr Webb is correct that the ab initio aspect of Lufthansa, followed by transition into line work, does result in some experiential gaps in pilot portfolios. Mr harvey makes Mr Webb's point in that many UK pilots, himself included, do have American experience, which , because of its subjection of pilots to a rich ( and, yes, sometimes dangerous) variety of experiences which does produce a far more versatile pilot than mere ratings can provide.

However, i stand with Mr Webb in that it cannot be denied that foreign cArriers outside of the English-speaking world simply do not have the safety record recently that US-UK-Canadian-Australian-New Zealand-South African operations have. As for the United States, yes, the seats are too small, the cabin crew sometimes giggles and gossips, and you get a soda, but---when it's 400 feet and 1/2 in Denver in blowing snow, put me in the back of one of those regional jets any time, because you can be sure that those airmen ( and women)---- who fly them for nothing and live from crash pad to crash pad---damn well know what they are doing and will get you there safe and sound

1. My intention was not to disparage gliders and I apologize if I offended your sensitive nature on that subject. My point was that sailplane flying was better than no flying...I guess.

2. Sorry, but I must disagree with your BA statement. BA has the same problem as all other foreign carriers -- no pool of qualified new hires. So they also have ab initio programs that take people from zero to a couple of hundred hours and put them in the right seat of a jet transport and left to be "trained" by the Captains they fly with. This is no different than Germanwings.

Also, I never mentioned anything about "professionalism" with foreign carriers. Many of them are very professional. Professionalism, however, does not equate to "proficiently."

Your anecdotal example of a flight on Northwest means nothing, really, and you are talking about Flight Attendants, not pilots. I have ridden in the jumpseats of BA 767 and 777 cockpits and can tell you that their cockpit crews are nothing to write home about.

As for the competence of "some US National (sic) Guard pilots" it is obvious that you understand nothing about war in regards to how it is fought from the cockpit of a fighter. Mistakes are unfortunate, but they have always been a thread thinly woven in the tapestry of battle. At least the US is fighting, something I see little of from our "great ally," Britain.

What you should worry about is your country and its obvious bend on self destruction in regards to the Muslim problem you have internally. There is no doubt, sir, why Britain lost its empire...

I would like to see this discussion stick to the piloting of modern jets. However, it now has sunk into the political. I guess, now days this can be expected. When I was in USAF flight school, I had two classmates who were Iranian. We trained them in our Air Force. In Vietnam, I flew alongside Australians. This Germanwings event could have occurred right here in the US. Where do we draw the line? I flew with crews where I wondered if we should be here today. However, I could not question and then judge until I really saw something I could prove. They were all "qualified" and "certified" to fly. Were they really? Actually, was I?

1. Gliders have little utility and are not that useful as a primer to powered flight, except in the matter of the selection of a suitable landing area in the event of an engine failure. However, with its exagerrated glide ratio, a glider does not duplicate the gliding performance of a light general aviation aircraft

2. i've learned something...i had always supposed that BA flight crews were among the very best in regard to proficiency...I do think it's interesting that most foreigners cannot differentiate between 'professionalism" and 'proficiency' with regard to the quality of a pilot's operations.

3. While I am sure that RAF crews would love to be more actively in the fray, Europeans generally and european politicians especially, want America to do their fighting for them, while they tut-tut America as the land of the gun-toting Cowboy, which they have of course risen above...and I couldn't agree more about their Mslim problem...Mr Obama joins them, unfortunately, in his inability to see Radical Islam as trhe defining challenge to Western Civilization that it is and has been for centuries.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I take issue with your third statement. I understood WWII, in particular, was fought as an allied effort. Am I mistaken, but didn't the RAF hold back the enemy advance under Churchill's courageous leadership during the Battle of Britain when she stood alone, using home built Spitfires and Hurricane aircraft? As someone mentioned above, Just sayin'...

World War II was then...modern European free riding on American defense is now...i actually think we Americans are far too rude in this world for Europeans and we should withdraw from NATO... However I do feel the Norwegians, the Danes, the Irish, the French, the Dutch, the Italians, the Scots, and especially the Swedes, are worth defending...Just sayin' 2

No one here is talking about WWII, when, if the US had not entered the war, the results would have been quite different and German would now be the language of Europe.

The RAF recognises seven aircrew personnel who were from the United States of America as having taken part in the Battle of Britain. American citizens were prohibited from serving under the various US Neutrality Acts; if an American citizen had defied strict neutrality laws, there was a risk of losing their citizenship and imprisonment. Even so, it is believed that another four Americans misled the British authorities about their origins, claiming to be Canadian or other nationalities.

I'm sorry, but didn't I say 'arrogant' as well?! And besides, who mentioned names? I guess the old proverbial applies, "If the shoe fits.."

Btw, I am an American Citizen whose father was a G.I. and stationed in Britain during the war. However, I'm not going to stand idly by and see my country of birth being insulted by the likes of you two!

"The likes of you two"...??? Please, Mr Palmer, don't be a crybaby...and we Americans routinely endure overseas insults...BTW, I happen to really like the Brits, despite their arrogance and the FACT that they drive on the wrong side of the road...:))))...if you can show demonstrable evidence that modern European aviation is in some ways NOT seriously DEFICIENT in the formation of PROFICIENT airmen that are VERSATILE under all operating scenarios, then by all means please do so...the fact that they are safe in the carefully controlled EUROPEAN environment and on well-worn long haul routes is no real evidence, in my view...and I grant you that there are always individuals who are exceptions

You might be surprised to hear this, but I agree with the majority sentiments here. I'm also pro-Boeing, and have been practically all my life. My very first flight as a passenger was on a BOAC 707 back in the summer of 1961. Today, Boeing also has the advantage of being technically superior over Airbus with their 787 program. The A350 uses old technology (pneumatics and hydraulics), while the Dreamliner is all electric, state of the art. Even Forbes refers to the latest Airbus as a 'white elephant'. No contest there!

IMHO, that is part of what's wrong with our current generation. As we do and act today, may just not line up with 50 years ago. We have some dark spots back there. Some today want to deny or change those spots but it is what it is and they must accept it.

There is nothing wrong with our current generation, sir. I grew up in the '60s when another generation went to war in Vietnam on the lies and notions of an earlier generation, and accomplished nothing...it was a fiasco and I am so sorry for all of those who had to participate in it...I'm especially sorry for about 500 women, children, and babies in the town of My Lai, and all we did about the monster that did it was "lights on for America"....so no, the current generation is an improvement, in my view...harsh, but true

just sayin' 4 and always glad and proud to be an American and what we really stand for

I grew up in the same generation and as you say, we cannot do anything but apologize for the likes of Bill Calley. That said, what I spoke of about generation is that while we remember it and now abhor/ apologize for it, there are some, not all, members of that generation that would just flatly like to deny that that and other atrocities did not occur at all, taking a naïve look and hoping they see a rosy world out there, then sadly disappointed when reality does set in.

i totally agree with what you are saying and the present generation cannot escape its obligation to serve a cause higher than itself...I was a jet mechanic in the US Air Force and i was damned glad to throw my sharpest salute at those who taxied away and put their lives on the line for our country.

Well, I was Stationed at the bottom end of South Korea and a couple times a month a taker crew would drop by and pick us up as the had to have a flight medic on board to hit a combat zone. This undoubtedly would mean a nite at DaNang or Cam Rhan Bay, sortying in and out. Let's just say there were times when the boys out of the North ran short on gas before they could get back to a safe zone. Everybody talks about the BUFF's that got shot down over there but you don't hear anything about dumbo. Had it not been for a damn good pilot, we could be pushing up daisies over there as well.

We may have won the war, but when I was an Army brat in the late 60's, all the Germans did cusss you behind your back and talk about how inferior you were, but the sure didn't mind taking your money. Later on as a young man and in USAF myself, Southeast Asia wasn't much different. From what I saw before I retired, not much change.

Unfortunately we all have our stereotypes, which i suppose is why British villains are a staple in American cinema...however, we do find the British to be particularly intolerant of our 2nd Amendment, for example, and our 2nd Amendment really is our affair, isn't it? Americans largely do not return the favor by flooding your media with disparagement of your monarchy, so please count that, if you will, as one small courtesy we extend to you, even in the face of our rude behavior...er, behaviour

That said, there is no doubt that an American duplication of the Germanwings SITUATION (which really was an invitation for abuse by by an unstable, low-time disturbed pilot) would not occur here. The Germans dropped the ball, period, and it's time they admitted it and moved on, rather than trying to hide behind a silly discussion about American manners and what used to be done "globally"

I think some of these posts were harsh on the Bus. I have never flown it but would still like to have total command of the flight. Having said that, I used autopilot almost all the time in the larger aircraft that had it. It was smooth and relieved me from constant stick and ruder flying. However, I grew up in the Jetstream J-31--no automation and like trying to stand on a beachball. Hand flying 100%. Maybe this is what we need now.

Well, I cut my teeth on a 707 and it will suffice to say that the 757 was a hellacious improvement, and at the last a newer 767 and CRJ. As far as the Airbus, I have not flown one, but I am told that without going through the process of one of their flight law changes, that you cannot go outside the flight envelope on the aircraft. I guess that is a good idea in theory, but every upset I have ever been involved in there has literally been no time to do anything other than handle the problem. Everything has a safety margin built in and sometimes you may have to use it, even if it damages the AC or requires an inspection later. As one poster said here, if the pilot had gotten back in, he might have had to over G the aircraft and the computer would not have let him. He would have crashed into the mountaintop instead of in that valley. The computer was a factor in AF447. It has not reared it's head in the last few years but I don't think anything has been done to correct it. The other thing that came into play was non-linked sidesticks. New manufactures like Bombardier and Gulfstream are linking them but Airbus has never corrected to my knowledge. Computers and FBW are a fine thing in place of hydraulic, but as the hydraulic, should be only an assist and not thinking for themselves. There is even talk now of a redundant hydraulic system for the FBW so who knows where it will all end.

A properly executed barrel roll is a "1G" maneuver. If you get anywhere near 2G's you have screwed up the roll. Almost any certified aircraft can be barrel rolled, no matter if it is a C-172 or a B-777.

You should be able to put a cup of coffee on the glare shield, perform the barrel roll, and not spill a drop of coffee. Fuel and oil systems would not know if they are right side up or upside down.

Sustained negative G's might require a flop tube in the fuel tank to keep from starving a reciprocating engine from being fuel starved. Oil systems in aerobatic aircraft that are designed to maintain sustained negative G's have specially designed oil systems to do the same.

David, in the pull up to the top of the barrel, you HAVE to pull more than 1G. The pull up is not a steady state, 1G climb. Likewise, after floating down the backside, more than 1G is required to arrest the descent back to where you started. Don't confuse a barrel roll with an aileron roll.

I beg to differ with you. I have flown hundreds of barrel rolls in my Christen Eagle II as well as other aerobatic aircraft. A perfect barrel roll can be flow at 1G -- it is all dependent on the rate of your roll maneuver. And, I do know the difference between an aileron roll and a barrel roll.

You have a point here. It does depend on the size and rate of roll. The larger the barrel the longer it takes, rate of roll is slow and unless you have lots of power you will runout of airspeed and have to float over the top and down the backside in order to have a perfect circle. The object is not to do it fast but to scribe a perfect circle while G's and airspeed are constantly changing. Remember your Chandel practices?

Check this out... A Perfect Barrel Roll in a Kingair - Pouring a drink during a barrel roll... Check it out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGprpxA0Q8M If they can do this, the oil will stay where it is supposed to, and so will the fuel.

I think you are incorrect.... 1G maneuver and the 1G would be pointed to the bottom of the aircraft not the ground... The oil would have stayed where it was supposed just as the fuel would... You did not watch the video.. Tex him self talks about it.

But on the other hand the safety record of the A320 is second only to your beloved 757. I understand you reluctance to fly anything you can't control 100%, but there must be something Airbus is doing right, otherwise the safety record would show it with such a mass produced aircraft.

I still don't like a machine that thinks for itself. That's what a pilot is for. You are correct about the safety record but I think that it is just luck that it hasn't reared its head somewhere. I think the mistake in all the FBW, regardless of mfg, is that the computer and electronics can be an assist rather than a primary function. I think that Boeing is set up this way, not sure. I know the 777 had some FBW and the 787 is all FBW but they kept the stick/yoke rather than go sidestick.

Agreed... Pilot should have the final authority over the plane when it is in the air... France Airshow low fly over was an excellent example.... Computer over road the crew.... The fact that Bus thinks that airplanes should have authority over the captain is my main problem with the entire series of planes.

I understand perfectly what you mean preacher & sparkie, and I agree. But the present level of safety in aviation is so high, at least in most countries, that I have no problem to do my job as self-loading cargo. In the last three years I've parked my butt in an Embraer, an ATR, a Dash 8, and several Boeings and Airbusses, from 737 to A380, with Air Canada, Air France, Lufthansa, Bulgaria Air, Royal Air Maroc, SAA and Swiss. I've never had the slightest hesitation to get on board, simply because the chances of anything going wrong are lower than being hit by lightning in my own bed. And I'd rather have several large suppliers of aircraft than only one, simply because they will push each other to be better, with different approaches.

"And I'd rather have several large suppliers of aircraft than only one, simply because they will push each other to be better, with different approaches"As long as the competition pushes innovation and safety forward, I agree

David, I believe your remarks to be very true and on the mark. When I look at acrft accidents involving foreign carriers what seems to stand out is the pilots are fine until they run into a situation in which they are totally unprepared to handle. and in so many cases do not understand.

I have worked for a lot of airlines and in the case of the smaller carriers flying smaller acrft, the auto pilot was not an option, hand flying in all cases. Airbus makes a fine product, but the automation makes clear that the human factor is being ignored w/ a justification that as you have said caters to low experienced pilots, but this automation is removing the most important factor, hands on experience, and this is where so many would be pilots can and do get weeded out.

Europe indeed suffers from all you have said, what is ironic here is a lesson that carriers should have learned from the early years of the space program. You had test pilots, aviators who came to the program and were pilots. They were being asked to fly in complex craft that indeed required a high degree of automation due to complexity, but like the first lunar landing Apollo 13 for example it came down to those skills which these guys came in with over years of experience. They understood their situation and took control.

When QANTAS suffered their A380 engine malfunction they were very fortunate they had not only two experienced pilots flying, but I think just as important and maybe more so, they had two other qualified individuals which took so much off the mental stress of those pilots. Another example United DC-10 crash in Iowa. I am a strong believer that 3 in the cockpit should be a requirement for crews w/ a first officer and or capt. with little experience, and even for crews w/ experience when operating very large acrft, 747,777, A380 etc.

This whole event has exposed some serious issues which should not be ignored and go well beyond the ill pilot, and the accident itself. You are right, we have some dire days ahead.

David: I can kinda sympathize with where you are coming from regarding foreign pilots, but knowing a lot of them, I'd have to put Speedbird and Lufthansa pilots right up there at top with the rest of us, and that is not slighting anyone else, but these 2 are coming to mind quickly. As to this particular happening, the 2 person cockpit rule might have been a deterrent but I don't know if it would have prevented this, regardless of carrier nationality.

Possibly the "old school" guys you knew. I do not know any Lufthansa guys but do know plenty of old school Speedbird guys. They are a different breed of cat than the "new school" foreign pilots altogether.

The ones in the right seats are a very weak link in the chain and only luck and the odds keep them out of trouble.

As for the two-person cockpit rule when someone has to leave their seat, we will never know if, in this case, a flight attendant up there would have made a difference. My gut feeling is that it would have.

Well, regarding the 2 person thing, the fact that he put it in a controlled descent, rather than just nosing it over and sticking it in the ground, tells me that he wanted to do it his way. That might have been a deterrent, idk, but if he would have been hell bent on it, ala the FedEx guy a few years back, I don't know how far anybody could have gone.

Preacher, all the FA would have to do is flip the switch and let the Captain back in and then there would have been a struggle. I don't fly much anymore but I have seen the FA put the beverage cart in front of the CP door when a pilot got out. I have no idea where this idea came from. In a single FA airplane, I don't know it is prudent to leave the cabin unattended. In a multiple FA aircraft it makes sense.

FA posted a video of the new AB door lock mechanism and procedure. It indicated that there was a 30 second delay after entering the override code the door would unlock for 5 seconds. Could this be countered by an action on the flight deck such as reflipping the lock switch?

If flipping a switch was all there was to it, no big deal, but one thing none of the EXPURTS or Talking heads hit on very much was the fact that the is a manual bolt on that door as well. kinda like a deadbolt

William, the regionals can't. Only one FA is required up to 50 seats. They say the cost is prohibitive and of course, the airlines only do as much as the FAA dictates. Fortunately, the 50 seaters are going away. All the larger regional aircraft--ERJ 175/190 and CRJ 700/900 have two FA's.

I guess we'll leave the nationality out of it but in none of these response did I see any disagreement about the Airbus. I never have flown one but I will not fly a machine where I cannot in total control. That should be enough said, other that I am old school and believe in stick and rudder skills or you don't belong in a cockpit.

Speaking on stick and rudder in general about this younger generation of pilots and Airbus's computer control theory. I am well familiar with the glider/sailplane pilots and winch takeoffs. Used to watch them at Mannheim all the time when I was an Army Brat kid about 10 years old. You are totally correct about a deranged person. You cannot protect for everything. As with the hardened cockpit door, we kept out the very one that might've saved the day.

I concur, and what makes it worse is Lufthansa now admits they did indeed know about the FO's mental state, of which their CEO denied several days ago. This, of course, opens them up to a potential massive law suit..

David- So true. Pilots these days say, "Am I automated yet"? Very few "hands on" hours in the "sim"...or outside, for that matter. Emergency scenarios that would require a mind and not a computer. Very disturbing and sad.

That Germanwings co-pilot would NEVER have been hired by any US carrier, period. Too little experience, "experience" that quite possibly would have weeded him out of the gene pool way before he even had an opportunity to apply for an airline job.

You are soooooooo right here. German Wings and DLH have a lot to answer for, this is one time I hope the lawyers clean house.

I think Bremen is primarily hiring and orientation phase. Phoenix is the primary flight School. Back in the day it was at Tucson. Not sure when it moved or why, but they use AZ because of 363 flying days in the year. That said, in my mind, this goes back in my mind that if they are going to fly in U.S. airspace, their pilots especially, and themselves as a carrier, should be subject to all requirements as a U.S. 121 carrier. We found out in the 214 crash at SFO that they were not. It seems that centered more on maintenance and operations but not on pilot qualification. Apparently it should have.

I will agree to that and they seem sincere about handling the aftermath in a responsible way. As with anything, there will be a lot of hindsight about things that should have been done. I just hope there is not some kind of knee jerk reaction to this thing that somebody says will fix it all because there isn't. Many will point to a low time pilot. I personally would rather have a low time pilot and train them in type rather than some of these banner pulling CFI wonders that waltz in the door with 1500 hrs. and an ATP.

You are so right about the knee jerk reaction danger. More technology is always the easy answer, it brings money to the well-connected that can in return help their politician friends in the next election, but any technology can be misused to conter its intended purpose. Better psychological screening and better supervision seems to me the answer, and also fine tuning of privacy laws, like in this instance the doctors were not allowed to warn Germanwings about the problems of the co-pilot. There should be exceptions for pilots or other jobs with public safety more important than individual privacy.

There might be an out here for an AME but I think he went to a private physician who would have had no obligation to anyone except the patient. Most physicians give a work excuse at request of the patient, so they don't have to work. I really can't figure this out unless physician just gave it as a standard thing or he requested it and then changed his mind. We'll never know.

Hey, Preach, you are absolutely correct. My family doctor really relied on me for the flight job. He really had no training on anything except ground based people who go to work everyday, drive cars and sit in an office in a building. My AME only did eyes, hearing, urine and a short interview. Then we signed the complicated FAA medical form. Many of us went back to the same AME because he had our records and he knew we had to fly for a job. I'm choosing now to not renew my medical and airmanship. I just love the classroom and teaching. I'm 71 and hope to pass on some experience.

I have let mine go so far. I turned 65 last November and that killed the ATP anyway, but I had been on waivers for Diabetes & Afib on my heart. That was OK but in December, I had to start insulin so I think that kills anything. That said, my AME was telling me that the LANTIS insulin, which is just taken daily like a pill once per day, may soon be allowed for waivers as well. We'll see. Let's just say I'm taking some "familiarity flights to keep up on things. LOL

Yeah, but it was like when I had the truck line. As long as it was labeled insulin and had to do with a needle, you were out of it. I had some aces that were in there 40's that were on minimum dosage as well and this stuff killed them as drivers. It is just another case of our law not keeping up with our technology. I was waivered on type 2 forever it seems like. The erractic up & down is with type 1. Type 2, while a pain, is not near as bad.

What I have a problem with is WOLF, trying to read things into something just not there on something he doesn't know a damn thing about. Kudos to Les & Mary for putting him in his place. Damn fearmonger.

I suggest that commenters leAVE POLITICAL BIASES out of their postings...WOLF is a JOURNALIST doing his job. As a pilot myself, I would say that the record and flight control system of the A320 is NOT above scrutiny and I find myself in frequent disagreement with LES as well...for example his personal opposition to firearms in the cockpit, which i support....

At this point I would say the accident appeard to be a CFIT for reasons unknown

I would agree on the cause. I stand by my feelings on Wolf. Yes, I will occasionally disagree with Les but Wolf is a continual teeth grit. He tries to be a lot more than your average journalist. Just Sayin'

But have you maintained 3000+ fps for several minutes? That is what is so striking here.

At least one of the black boxes have been found, and I will return to yelling at the television "experts" giving their knee-jerk interpretations of what may have happened. The final report is likely to take quite a long time to produce.

I think we all have been there at one time or other, for various reasons, in various AC types. I think, as Jeremy says here, what is unusual, is for the length of time that it was sustained. Until the FDR/CVR is recovered, I don't think we have head any speculation yet. I will go back to hollering at the "EXPERTS" as well.

From the incident report: "﻿﻿When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position."So even of with functioning flight controls, the plane thinks it should be able to overrule the pilots and fly the plane the way it sees fit. Nice systems design (sarcasm).

That rate can be normal, an Airliner doesnt des at 1500 ft/min if they can choose, with the a320 if you pull idle open des in Mach your rate will be much more, i have been flying for 7 Airlines two of them were major And nobody wants you to des earlier

Sorry 2-person fans, that scheme is not going to prevent the Germanwings event. The two person rule is there to protect the pilot in the cockpit, not prevent a bad act by the pilot in the cockpit. A lunatic intent on destroying the plane, who happens to be one of the pilots, is not going to be deterred by a flight attendant in the cockpit. The rule is useless in the present case. The entire subject of cockpit security will have to be reengineered to prevent a crazy pilot from crashing the plane. Parking a flight attendant in there is not going to do the job.

It may cause other security problems, but the only way to fix one pilot leaving the cockpit and guarantee access back would be to have an "overide" switch that would guarantee the pilot leaving, access to return WITHOUT having the pilot remaining to push a button to let him in.

Even that may not prevent a similar incident/accident. I think when the Egypt Air dive that was caused by the copilot happened about 10 years ago, the Captain did gain access back into the cockpit, but couldn't stop the dive into the Atlantic.

Maybe, at the end of the day, we must acknowledge that we cannot prevent every possible adverse event ( a set larger than every conceivable event) and that we live in an imperfect world. Screening of individuals for 'trusted' positions will never be perfect.

The FlightAware graph for the flight is interesting:http://flightaware.com/live/flight/GWI9525/history/20150324/0835Z/LEBL/EDDL/tracklog

All of the data was generated by ADS-B. This means that the data came from the plane's on board sensors.

The first obvious point is that the plane appears to have descended rapidly while maintaining airspeed. This is what is being reported in the media and on this forum.

I'm not an expert, but in addition to the above, the airspeed line on the graph shows 2 interesting things.

1) It could be corrupt Flightaware data, but there seems to have been a glitch in the airspeed at about 12 minutes into the flight. This could indicate a problem with the airspeed instrumentation. Note that the same chart on FlightRadar24 does not show the glitch.

2) About 4 minutes after the plane started to descend, the airspeed on the graph starts to reduce. However the rate of reduction tapers off in a very smooth curve. Is this what we would expect from the proposed scenarios, or could it be a pitot tube problem?

I welcome any thoughts on this observation. As I said, I am not an expert & haven't flown anything bigger than a C172.

I just realized that the speed in the graph is ground speed, so the pitot is unlikely to be involved. What I don't know is whether the ground speed in the graph is generated from the ADS-B provided Lat / Long by FlightAware, or whether it comes from the on-board instruments. Either way, it is likely GPS based, so the speed glitch could just be a GPS error.

the reduction of airspeed could be expected from a reduction in true airspeed as the airplane descends. Most commercial pilots assume that they need 210kits indicated for a glide - the speed over the ground should decrease as they descend because the difference between true airspeed and indicated/calibrated airspeed, given a standard atmosphere the ground speed will decrease if you are trying to maintain a fixed indicated airspeed.

Also - you could just be seeing a reduction in tail wind component as the aircraft descends out of the jetstream . . .

Pitot issue sprang to mind too. (But granted, I am just speculating and am not a pilot). Could be a combination of bad data being fed to pilots (ie pitot iced up), bad reaction to the bad data, and a little snowblind / loss of spatial awareness as they got low... by the time GPWS comes out its too late...

You know...I just think everyone on this forum is in an "ozone" after the recent developements concerning the Co-Pilot. Just doesn't seem possible that the commication between the "Flight Surgeon", who grounded him...or put him on sicklist, didn't communicate his mental state to "Flight Ops" and notify notify the Crew Desk that this Crew Member was not fit to fly. If they were notified they would have a Reserve in to replace him in the "right seat". No Communication. No one knew he was on "sicklist". Red flag!! Nobody knew. This "event" will definitely unite the "world" carriers. Aviation regulations will all be on the same page. I hope that another 149 "souls" won't have to perish because of a "true professional", who had everything going for him, who had a mental problem. What more can I say. To the Passengers and Crew Members of "Germanwings" Flight 9525, who paid the ultimate price...GOD SPEED.

Depression still has stigma attached to it and I'm wondering how many people reading this have had depression or know someone in their family with this illness. It is very common nowadays and very sad for suffers and their families. They can present as stable and settled when assessed and hide their symptoms so maybe after a few episodes of depression a job in caring for people's safety should be looked at and scrutinised perhaps given other duties and monitored on the ground for a long period even though the person is saying they are well .Risks can not take place when people's lives are at stake. My heart goes out to every person aboard that plane and their families and friends. Also we must not forget the co-pilots parents ! They have to live with what their son done, took his own life with 150 innocent people who wanted to live.

A bit of data analysis. The descent started just offshore, about 10 NM DE of Marseille. If an emergency was noted at the time and the crew was able, they were in glide range of a major airport.

Also note the course change from 043 deg to 031 deg right at the start of the rapid descent. It's not a terribly constructive course change, as it didn't steer them towards any useful destination. Might just be a coincidence (a flight planned course change), but could show that some loss of attention of the crew or loss of control.

After 0530 there is no heading change and even with the high rate of descent there is no appreciable speed change for the first half of the dive and after that they're bleeding off speed and reducing the descent rate. If the dive is under pilot (not computer) control they're not deviating heading looking for a place to put her down. Can the spoilers/brakes partially deploy on a 320 at 400 knots ?

The speedbrakes operate fine in cruise descent. If the autopilot is engaged on an A320 (the normal case), then they are limited to 1/2 extension. The designed failure mode for something wrong with a speedbrake is for it to retract.

They were far from their destination, and it is a very unlikely failure mode for the speedbrakes to spontaneously extend.

Thanks very much Bart. I'm just an elderly amateur trying to understand the limited amount of data I'm seeing. I feel for the poor buggers who were involved, both in the cockpit and the pax, and what they were experiencing for the 8 minutes after 0530.

I was speculating on what the pilots were trying to achieve (if they were concious)after 0530. The AF447 CVR transcripts really make sad reading. They were so overwhelmed but didn't give up trying what they knew, even if it was grossly inadequate.

Many thanks for answeing my speedbrake question. I asked because I wondered if there was some effort being made to regain control. In sailplanes in the 1970s we used brakes to control rate of descent and stick to control airspeed. In this instance the airspeed seems to have not been a problem.

As for unsafe failures in critical components, it can happen if you recall for example the Flight Director failure in the Air India 747-200 on climb out from Bombay back in the 1970s which caged itself advising continuing to raise the nose in a climbing turn, advice which was being followed by the pilots until it completely lost airspeed and rolled on its back. That example was cited as the reason to continually scan the whole panel and not fixate on a single instrument.

that 400 Kts is GS, not IAS, the speed is showing in relation to Ground. when up at that level its indicating to the aircraft more around 2-300 partial deploy is capable for any aircraft within its normal envelope.

what gets me on this is, i see several instances of over 2K rates in the history of this aircraft.

i see a few instances of the same route.

that 3-4k rate is either going to be duress or control loss.

also, can the 320 maintain cabin pressure regulation at that kind of rate? did they pass out and just wind up in the mountain side unconscious?

I don't know the A320's cockpit layout, but it is possible that the pilots, as they insert 031 deg in the autopilot wrongly inserted 031 in the descent rate? descent rate does hover about -3100 from that point on...

B) if they lost power and were gliding why no turn around and head out of the alps?

C) if they were gliding why didn't the speed go down as they descended [true airpseed would have trended downward as the speed necessary to glide at 210kias comes down with increaseing air density]

D) Not ANOTHER bad info to the computers causing an Airbus crash and poor stick and rudder skills?

E) A descent at that rate is necessary for loss of cabin pressure- could there have been a Loss of Cabin Press and ENER DSNT keyed in and then everyone lost consciousness - airplane flew itself into the mountains?

Well, we have a 24 year old aircraft so mechanical is an option, but more important, as bad as the rivalry may be at times, why do we have to lead a story with the aircraft type, like we are tickled to death that it is one type rather than the other, instead of leading with the fact that in this case, there were 142 souls probably lost.

I think they lead with the aircraft type because it immediately satisfies the publics curiosity. First question most people ask is " what type of plane was it?" It helps us to pre-determine the possible gravity of the situation.

During the press conference, Germanwings said that the aircraft had routine maintenance yesterday and the last C-check was in summer 2013. PIC had over 6,000 hours in type, but no information was given on the First Officer's experience.

The 1500 hour rule and an ATP is just a recent law in the US thanks to Colgan at BUF. I remember flying with FOs who only had 500 TT in Cessnas. Most were competent but still it was OJT. On The Job Training. We made it happen. None were mentally or physically impaired. Todays world is not your grandfather's. Now you're expected to step into a regional jet like a CRJ-900 or Embraer-175 with 70+ pax. These are big aircraft. Not too many years ago USAir and Northwest (old names) flew the DC-9 and Fokker-100 at the mainline level. These newer, glass cockpit, same size aircraft are much more complex and ATC is also. I opposed the 1500 hour rule at first but now after reconsidering, it might be needed.

I opposed the 1500 hr rule and still do, primarily because if you take a low time FO and train him up, you know what type training he has going into his ATP. It is totally a crapshoot and should be a gut feel from the employer rather than arbitrary. There is nothing sure anymore. There may have to be some medical privacy given up in the event of sick leave or unfit as in the company being notified, but again, that can probably only come from an AME / FS type and most folks will go to their personal physician for treatment such as this, so IDK the answer. There is not a one size fits all here.

Peter...When they passed the 1500 hour rule didn't they also pass a "restricted privileges ATP certificate" allowing pilots with fewer than 1500 hours to fly as co-pilot as long as they met certain educational requirements? Going from memory here, so I could be wrong. Just remember reading something,

It is sorta similar except that 522 did not dive. It stayed at cruise, then had a flame out just as a crewmember that was still conscious got in the cockpit. That said, that is one good reason not to just gloss over something because a captain has a gazillion hours. This guy had had 16000+ and he made a mistake. I could happen to any of us. Some we catch and live to fly another day. Some we don't and it leaves the rest of the folks wondering how in the Sam Hill they could have done something that stupid.

It is presumptuous to say that if the FO wanted to destroy the aircraft......therefore he should have gone into a steep dive to do so.It is looking obvious he wanted to die and he did it in his way that his mind and planning was dictating. For what ever reason, he wanted a controlled crash in the mountain. I am a retired trauma surgeon, and I have seen how terribly sick, irrational, and confused the mind can be.Credit to the authorities letting important info out as they find it.Granted something things may be misinterpreted but I feel the current technology both from airlines, controllers, and medical revelations, this will be shown to be a deliberate act.

They do have some boots on the ground but they had to rope down off the helicopter as the choppers could not land. This is gonna be a tough one. All parties have indicated that there are no indications of terrorism

I retrieved this from Fox news GB office from a college in London. They did say that they recovered some information but were waiting to review the flight parameters and other info from the other black box. Best guess is either fire/smoke or complete electrical failure, very disturbing either way. One other point, i could not define an impact point or evidence of a fire on the ground

I do not quite understand what they were new facts in this video. The reporter said only that "the black box can help you understand why there was no radio communication during the fall," and we already knew. But the researcher who gave a press conference today was very clear in stating that heard the content, and that "it is too early to say who were the voices". Which means had voices. He also said he did not seem to have had any decompression, but that does not rule out any possibility.

Don't worry about it and I think Allen will agree, this thing ain't gonna be over for a good while. There is a difference between what the media, and it matters not which one, is saying and what officialdom is saying. Even the French President and his Safety board guru were not on the same page, so until something gets out there and stays awhile, we can start to accept it.

No audio from either pilot, but they have enough info to know it was not decompression.... They would by now have had plenty of time to rule out smoke, and if the crew had passed out for some reason the chances of both of them are negligible. I hope they have enough left of the crew bodies to do an autopsy as that may bring some evidence.... Never saw a crew that got that close to the ground without saying something, even if it is off topic. The specifically say "from either pilot"... I wonder what was heard as the CVR's not only tap both crew mics and headsets, but also an area mic that can hear beyond the cockpit... As much as I hope it is not true, I hope it was not Crew Premeditated Suicide. It would appear that the CVR has created more of a mystery instead of solving them.

I agree sparkie I retrieved this from Fox news GB office from a college in London. They did say that they recovered some information but were waiting to review the flight parameters and other info from the other black box. Best guess is either fire/smoke or complete electrical failure, very disturbing either way. One other point, i could not define an impact point or evidence of a fire on the ground

The flight log data is being misinterpreted. The rates of descent aren't as dramatic as they seem because they are instantaneous values between data points. The average rate from 37600 to 11400 feet is 2911fpm....an "agressive" descent but not too unusual. I believe an uncommunicated deviation from an airway requires a 10 degree left turn, the track log shows a 12 degree turn, then another 7 degrees. But this could be pure coincidence.

There's an unusual, momentary drop in airspeed climbing through 23,200 feet that doesn't seem to affect the climb profile.

as many on this site have aviation experience,it is a normal thing to speculate about the pilot,co pilot,the circumstances and the aircraft itself..i have listened to the reports and also the speculation from experts in the field on cnn,fox,msnbc and the regular networks,who have worked with crashes,the faa,the ntsb,or have flown this particular aircraft..i have watched video clips of the door operation,and the control used to have the plane descend and override the computer..what I am trying to say is listening and waiting for the evidence is far better than comparing this tragedy to other crashes,or accidents such as the hawaiin jet whose top ripped open, or the eastern airlines l1011 from back in the 70s,as some here have mentioned..the tragedy is the loss of life due to the deliberate actions of one person,as per the evidence so far...

Mary Susan Watkins--the computer on the bus is referred to as "fifi". She is Ok as long as you are in the envelope. 99.9999% of flights are in the envelope. The envelope is where all aircraft are certified to operate within. Get out of it and all is test pilot stuff. This FO could have easily eased the jet into a descent that took them into the rocks. I want to hear the cockpit recorder screaming "terrain. terrain" as they went down. How about "pull up, pull up"? Why didn't that wake this guy up and tell him that death was imminent? Because he didn't care.

A lot of old people have had experiences young people might not have had. Years ago we used to sit around smelly old chairs at the FBO and bull and in a way sites like this supplement such times. Sometimes things old people experienced never made it into the manuals or training programmes, things which young pilots may never have thought of, such as occasionally looking out of the windscreen. On EA401 there were 3 people looking at a light bulb and no one was looking at how close they were getting to the ground.

There were young pilots on AF447 who didn't seem to comprehend the attitude of their aircraft in relation to the warnings they were receiving. Maybe if they had had the opportunity to learn about the relationship between attitude, airspeed and a stall the outcome might have been better.

Sticking to the checklist IAS can be hazardous. On short finals at 40 knots IAS in a Blanik, losing height, and going backwards, away from the runway, in a 45 Kn headwind, if you wait too long to stick the nose down, you don't make it to the threshold. It may be counter-intuitive to stick the nose down rather than pull back to stretch the glide, but you have to understand and recognise the situation so that you can increase airspeed.

In a tight turn your inside wingtip travels much slower than the outside wingtip and with a large wingspan sailplane (or a U-2) even though you may have an IAS of 40 Kn, well above a placarded 33 Kn stall, the inner wing can stall while the lift still being generated by the outer wing slams you over violently into a spin. Entering a spin at 600 foot AGL in the pattern you won't have a lot of time to recover. In gusty situations, and tight turns you may want to add airspeed to that in "the book".

Old people's speculation based on their experiences might not help explain a situation which has already happened, especially in Papa-Xray, but it might one day help young people get out of one or even induce young people to try some highly improbable event in a simulator, such as how long they can stretch a glide in a 767, which one day might save a hundred or more lives.

In a sailplane you're usually looking for a place where it might be safe to land. Not so with reliable Pratt and Whitneys and ample fuel. But then one day ....for an improbable series of events, take a look at : hawaii.hawaii.edu/math/Courses/Math100/Chapter1/Extra/CanFlt143.htm

certainly they use past evidence and accidents as a reference..my point is the 2 accidents i referred to (which people on this site mentioned) are in no way similar to this one by comparison of circumstances,type of aircraft or even the actions of the crew..every crash that happens boils down to a mechanical malfunction of some system or pilot error..in this case,it is proving to be not pilot error,but a pilots deliberate actions..one more chapter to add to the knowledge gathered from past accidents and incidents...

Mary Susan Watkins, I have spent a good part of my life analyzing accidents and I learn from every one. I teach young and old pilots the benefit of learning from other's misfortunes. We all can learn to not repeat the same mistakes over and over and expecting different results. This crash is very different. The FO has a real life issue and decided to take his own life.

All totaled, I flew 41 years, til my certificate and health crapped out in November and my philosophy during that time was that if I didn't learn something new every day, no matter how big or small, then it was a wasted day. That said, each accident is a tad different. Though they may be similar, there is always some small difference. Just like this one. Why did he set the descent and hold the speed where he did rather than just kick the nose over and speed like heck to the crash scene. That raise questions about his mental state by itself. Was he actually wanting somebody to get in there and stop him? We'll never know but we must take whatever precautions we can to keep it from happening again.

Does anyone one remember a French/Swiss movie about a plane crash with lots of rich people in the Alps that got swallowed up by glaciers. In the spring or later it was exposed and the locals took jewelry etc. before it got lost again. There was a lot of melodrama.

The flight deck titles are as follows: Captain and First Officer, for flight duties related to the aircraft manual, they are referred to as Pilot Plying and Pilot Not Flying. Both are, for the mostpart, equally trained in the aircraft, swap flying and non-flying responsibilities every other leg, at least in the US. An A320 in a 3000-4000 ft/min descent is nothing unusual. The aircraft, in stabilized cruise speed in a controlled descent, would still only have a negative deck angle in descent of approx 7-10 degrees nose down. Not nearly the "dive" the media is portraying. And think about this, the media is also judge and jury to the FO as well. If he were truly trying to "purposely destroy the airplane," wouldn't he have a descent rate of more like 10,0000 ft/min, or a deck angle resembling a true dive, or at least more like 30 degrees nose down??? Come on Media, stop sensationalizing the story. To me,this is like comparing the portrayed actions of the FO to trying to outrun a police officer doing the speed limit down a city street. The media has not learned that premature speculation is dangerous. Once again, they probably have it all wrong. I will chooose to wait for the final and offical avaiation investigative findings.

The media speculation was in there at first but now, most everything seems to be coming from the French prosecutor. I too question the dive speed and angle but they seem pretty solid that he was NOT incapacitated.

As a former airline pilot, I find it so incrediby frustrating that global media can get a fraction of truth in their detail, mixed in with almost total complete inaccuracies when it comes to aviation. They suddenly become experts on the subject. That would be like me trying to report on brain surgery. And people believe it, that's crazy.

Are you freakin' kidding me that Lufthansa and other airlines have no policy, like in the US, to have TWO bodies in the cockpit at all times? Of course, it took 150 people to lose their lives, some of which were employees, for that policy to be put in place. That move took no time at all!Even I can figure out that anything could happen in the few minutes that the second crew member is off the fight deck...medical issue, errant aircraft, suicidal pilot, etc. We'll probably never know how this atrocity was planned out. What if the Captain never vacated his seat? Would the FO still have tried to bring the plane down?God bless all the passengers and crew members that were aboard, and damn the responsible owners for their complacency. I hope the surviving families sue the shit out of them! IDIOTS

There is no other cause. Gimme a reason to believe that the Captain would step out and then not be let back in. What are the chances the 28 YO FO had a medical emergency and would not be able to flip a switch?

One reason referencing back to Jet Blue when the capt left the flight deck and basically went crazy, basically telling people they were going to die and so forth.. The FO locked him out of the cockpit. From the article: "A JetBlue pilot arrested after an apparent meltdown aboard a March flight has been found not guilty by reason of insanity.", "Unruly JetBlue pilot found not guilty by reason of insanity". However, I do not think that is the case in this situation, and I cannot think of another situation.

I find it incredible that the voice recorder can pickup the sound of the co-pilot breathing. The A320 MUST be a very quiet cockpit if that is true. My cockpit experience is with the C-135, C-130, C-121, C-141, Boeing 707, 727, 747 and Lockheed 1011. In none of these plane could I hear other crew members breathing even bring a foot or two away.

Those CVR mikes are really something. Even in a fairly new 767, you can't really crosstalk unless you got a headset on, without having to yell. You really wouldn't think it but the cockpit is a noisy place.

From my observations, Buses have much louder cockpits than Boeings, but an interesting observation a CRJ 700/900 Next Gen plane is much quieter than many of their larger relatives. Not being a pilot, but flying Jump seat as a Company Mechanic.

My experience has been that the air system was the loudest in the cockpit. Shut it off and everything becomes silent. There's a lot of heat in the CP that has to be cooled. That being said, rear engine aircraft are inherently quieter in the cockpit.

Crew headsets have mics on all the time tied to the CVR... PTT and Intercom features only make it hot when used, but the recording continues. Not to mention the area mic in the cockpit is VERY sensitive and as we have seen here picks up many sounds... ALso keep in mind that once downloaded the sounds can be filtered out by computer so that they can hear only what they want to hear, or to remove what they do not want to hear... IE: Wind Noise passing the windows.

Now that we know it was not a Bus problem......Only the Captain signs the release verifying he/she is fit to fly and is qualified. I have flown with some crews where I had doubts. However, you can't prejudge everybody. I just took it into my "situational awareness" and pressed on. In the United States, a CFR 121 pilot takes a physical every 6 months (Captain) and FO's every year. We sign the medical form, under penalty, stating we are complying and are fit to fly. There is almost nothing you can take or be on or program to be in if it will have any effect on your ability to fly. If we lied, we could lose our medical and license and maybe even serve jail time. Say good by to your career. OTC meds are routinely taken when they really shouldn't. You have to keep flying. The FAA and company knows this. There's a fine line between reality and legality. It's a legal thing where the company cannot be held liable because in the Ops Manual it clearly states their position--comply with the regs. Lufthansa is scrambling now to justify their hiring and screening practices.

Probably a lot of other jobs tightly regulated too but this is one where you not only have your company standing there but also the government. Pilots are only human and not perfect, but they are expected to be,

Yeah, we are now going into the GoPro video everything era. I know some truck drivers have a camera on them and one on the road to video all events. They have GPS to track every mile. I don't even want to address the police. I believe this is insurance driven. Liability is more important then getting the job done.

Yes worth reading Ev. Very informative! I think all pilots who go off sick for more than the usual 7 days should have to get their GP to send the sickness certificate to the company, what ever airline they are working for. This should be written and insisted upon in their contracts when flying commences with the company. If the airline doesn't receive the certificate then the pilot should be grounded and be assessed by the airline Doctors and psychologists. This will stop future pilots throwing their " not fit for work" in the bin!

Pierre these comments are not pointless. Yes we know a lot more now but what are the air lines going to do about it? Mental illness is not always visual to colleagues, it's not a transparent illness. Remember the cockpit door system was only invented and managed this way due to terrorist!! We now have to look at a pilots stability but this is going to be a very difficult task. I agree with the airlines so far who are already having 3 people in the cockpit due to this horrific event!

Many reports surfacing this morning..3/27..Copilot respirations perfectly normal down to impact. (open mike). Not one word spoken.Captain tried to break down door with Axe from emergency kit.Lock to cabin intentional in lock position so keypad and emergency code inactive. Of course have to wait for final official statements. All indications point to planned suicide.

Lufthansa should never have let her fly an airplane to a person who had stopped for depression the training course , even though he had passed the disease and it was brilliant result in the completion of course.Strange that none of the friends and family has never noticed anything. I believe that depression is a latent evil that may come up suddenly after having apparently overcome, sometimes with some signs that those close should perceive. If the first driver had known depression ( perhaps for privacy did not know ) , should not have left only the co-pilot who , apparently , after a first flight seems " quiet " has proved " laconic " with the commander , before they came out of the cabin .

Certainly a rapid descent is a standard procedure when there is a loss of cabin pressurization. That leaves a couple of things unexplained, though.

First, the descent rate was too high. Second, it doesn't explain the course change (which wasn't towards any airport or away from higher terrain). Third, there was no subsequent mayday call.

If the decompression was explosive (sudden due to a major structural failure or loss of door, there will be noise and, for a short period, dense fog. At 35,000' the time for useful consciousness for a sitting person is only 45 seconds (they were at 38,000), so the crew has to respond quickly. When a decompression happens, the first task is to grab a quick-donning oxygen mask. These are always within reach of the flight crew for aircraft that operate at these high altitudes. This task is extensively practiced in the simulator.

Once the masks are on, the descent is a rapid but controlled maneuver.

Eye witnesses saw the plane 30 seconds before impact. "There was no smoke coming from the plane, but it was so low it was clear it was going to crash". Another witness reported the plane making "a strange sound, as if something was wrong with the engine" .Honestly, I think that every plane flying at low altitude at 400 kts sounds strange.

I am an aviation enthusiast, certainly not a pilot nor an expert in aviation. However, I haven’t seen any mention in this thread of a possible decompression.

Patrick Smith in his book Cockpit Confidential talks of the procedures that should be taken in such a case. They seem to fit what happened in the Germanwings crash. He says standard procedure is, after dealing with Oxygen masks, to initiate a controlled but fast dive. From 35,000 feet to not less than 10,000 feet probably taking eight or nine minutes. He adds that things are more complicated in mountainous regions but even here there are supposedly “escape paths” for airplanes at lower altitudes.

one tragedy , our suggestion - 3 people in the hanger being oãcomandante , co- pilot and engineer softaware hard and with our pilot , as he had before the piston airplanes - one at a time to leave the cabinEdison - Porto Seguro - Bahia

Does anyone know if opening any or all the doors could have affected the speed of the plane or caused a less catastrophic accident. What about jumping out? Throwing baggage out? anything in addition to useless pounding on a door built to resist.

Loe airline errors are frequent cassis what ay to lower the incidence of these unfortunate events Germanwings flight, 1 st the expert and technical security of aerial lines must find a more direct method in the search for a more workable solution open door where are the pilots in aircraft passenger-reaching

You can see that they descended in about 10 minutes from 38.000 to 6.800 feet.I can't match the chart with a distress call at 9:47; that would be after the crash. Probably the distress call was just before the crash.

Google translation:"The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which had initially indicated that the flight had declared in distress at 10 am 47, is back on his words." The crew did not issued "mayday." This is the air traffic control that has decided to declare the aircraft in distress because he had no contact with the crew and the aircraft, "she has said."

One thing I always did like about our 135/91 operation was coming to work with the same people all the time rather than having to size somebody on the fly. At least with a steady partner, you could tell if they were having a bad day. A lot of the time you might wind up being an intermediary, but in my case, the flying was an escape and just put people more on their game.

This is google translate, please address any further comments in English:

I really am not an expert on aircraft, but usually in aviation accidents occur due to errors in the final review under the mechanics who review or closing the doors of luggage do not understand the language in which this WARNING written and that's where the mistake.Moreover they are beating a dead tree under a long period always takes on the analysis of the black boxes and accident that was far away. Possibly this opinion is the lesser evil especially regarding either economically or insurance payments

Lot's of questions without answers here and either I missed something or something is being withheld. Since they haven't recovered the FDR yet, how do they know, as some have reported, that the altitude was set to 100'?

I was on an A-320 last July on a domestic flight in Brazil, where I live. Already on the tarmac computers onboard shut down and the pilot had to move back to the gate for an it operator restart the system. If the same happens during a flight, what might happen? That is the question I ever wanted to know. I know nothing about those adorable modern jetliners, have no idea on what happened up there on flight 4U 9525. As far as I am concerned to fly today is safer than never. I am, like everyone, very interested in knowing what happened up there.

Computers are part of our daily lives now and have been for awhile. That said, the program that Airbus has out there has been under much scrutiny for doing just a bit too much. It is one thing for Fly By Wire and a computer assist rather than a hydraulic assist. It is another for the pilot to be locked out of the loop and not be able to control the plane. When Mr. Murphy walks in to a cockpit and upsets things, that pilot is paid to correct that upset to the best of their ability and doesn't need anything in the way that he has to get out of the way before he can deal with the problem. Most of the computer program is written with logic and not flight experience and there is one hellacious difference.

The FDR is missing it's microchip? Well then it's essentially useless. I thought FDR's and CVR's were designed to withstand high velocity, high energy impacts like a jet slamming into a mountain at high speed? First MH370 and now this. The aviation industry and government regulating agencies need to make a whole new commitment to flight safety no matter what the cost.

Latest reports are that the cockpit voice recorder is so badly damaged that the information may be irretrievable, and that the memory card is missing from the flight data recorder....this may be a hard one to solve.

Reports saying it had just been inspected yesterday. Maintenance didn't close something out that manifested itself once they switched to cruise? What would not be used during climb that would be used once it got to cruise?

I was thinking maybe something on pressurization after being reminded about 522, but I would have thought that the FD would have taken it on at altitude if that was the case. I just think something real ugly came into the cockpit and they tried to deal with it, running out of airspace in doing so. For the what, we'll have to wait for the boxes.

Wayne I have a few thoughts to bring to the tabletop discussion: 1. I am absolutely puzzled by the lack of communication from the cockpit, three seconds to repeat mayday. 2. it bothers me that there are no fire or impact points on the ground which seems odd considering the fuel on board. Other than that my only guesstimate would be a froze AoA indicator commanding a descent by the flight director whereas the pilots could not work the many check list items in order to get the system into alternate law in order to regain control.

Well, that lack of communication is a big point in about any thought or discussion on this crash. As you say, 3 seconds to holler mayday and not much more to hit a transponder. I just can't believe that no matter what, that in the space of 14 minutes, that they couldn't find a few seconds to let somebody know something. That is what is fueling all the talk about pilot incapacitation, so idk.

Not a good sign, NYT reporting problems w/ recorders:"But the search for clues about what caused the crash was dealt a setback Wednesday afternoon, as investigators said they had so far been unable to retrieve any data from the plane’s cockpit voice recorder. The inquiry has been hampered further, an official said, by the discovery that the second black box, which was found on Wednesday, was severely damaged, and its memory card was dislodged and missing."

And if little or nothing can be retrieved, it will be endless speculation for a real good while. I am still inclined to believe it was a case of CFIT. Why is going to be the question. There are a lot of folks that would like to start Airbus bashing about now but whether you are a fan or not, until there is some firm evidence, they will just be guessing

I almost do not want to speculate on this subject, but, I have seen other recorders with this much and more damage and the info for the most part were retrieved which leads me to the thought that if it was a pilot induced descent liability goes up exponentially. just saying.......

As Allen says in another comment here below, the lack of fire or explosion on impact gives cause for concern as well. So many things, a cause will be impossible if the can't get something off the recorders. I guess those recorders aren't as indestructible as thought. I still haven't heard anything final off that Indonesian plane that went down in the water last month or whenever.

Yes, the level of damage on the box(es) is appallingly real. And thank you to you, Sparks, and Preacher, as well as a few others for some common sense. Listening to the press briefing this morning, I was amazed at the stupid journalists repeatedly asking "why, how, when, where.." just, really, within hours of the crash. Sounded like, "well...maybe if I ask the same questions with different inflection they will answer differently..." DOH!!!!!

Hello gentlemen of our global friendly skies. I have been paying close attention to this disaster since my friend first pointed it out to me earlier yesterday afternoon. Now I am not a pilot or even a stewardess for that matter, im here for self education purposes . What i find interesting about it all are the eye witness reports right before the plane in question crashed. a lot of unanswered questions . yet its way too soon for any of them to be properly answered. would sudden fuel loss shortly after cruise altitude be a factor in the cause of the overall accident ? because according to eye witnesses on the ground pointed out that the plane was NOT in flames as she crashed into the mountain and no smoke either . or im just a fool asking stupid questions about something i know nothing about ...

I tend to over obsess on these crashes, trying to visualize how I would handle a similar situation (there but for the grace of god go I).

One last observation is that the airspeed reported was pretty darn consistent from FL380 down to below FL180. This would seem to indicate that the aircraft was under some control. As Frank Harvey points out in his comments below, the crew of AF447 was totally overwhelmed by a sequence of failures and the Airbus' barrage of information presented to the pilot. But that plane had just flown into am major thunderstorm.

If the crew of 9525 was overwhelmed, what got to them? Multiple flame outs (engine failures)? If they kept up there airspeed but had no power, could that explain the descent rate? (need to see the performance tables for the A320 to confirm ... just a guess) If the autopilot was engaged, then should not have changed course.

One time I was a pax on a very early morning Easyjet 737 sitting on the tarmac at EGGP-Liverpool listening to the all sorts of bells, klaxons and "pull up...pull up" coming from the cockpit where a couple of mx bods were trying everything to stop the various confusing and overlapping noises. Listening to the cacophany made me wonder how anyone could concentrate and aviate with a clear head without being distracted by all these "warnings".

Additionally the mx people were getting very frustrated and voices were being raised between them and the flight crew who seemed to be under the impression that they had been told by dispatch that the problem(s) had been "cleared up" and signed off the night before. From the discussion it appeared that at EGGP, Easyjet mx was contracted and the contractors felt that Easyjet were not the quickest, or happiest, at paying their bills and wanted to be certain they'd be paid expeditiously. The discussion and debate made interesting pre-flight entertainment. I was sitting next to dead-heading company personnel who were scheduled as crew for another flight and which was now going to be late and were getting increasingly frustrated themselves. The cabin crew looked embarrassed but couldn't close the cockpit door because of the mx' toolbags and the coming and going on the stairs.

I got the impression that there might still have been some u/s equipment on our flight when we did eventually depart.

Then enroute a baby projectile vomited over his mother's shoulder onto a well dressed pax on the seat behind. That pax, wearing a really nice suit, was travelling to EGAC-Belfast for what he said was an important meeting. The smell of baby-milk vomit throughout the cabin made the flight even more memorable.

But at least no one was killed, or injured.

If anyone is offended by my rambling I apologise, but there's no nearby FBO for me to go and sit for a chat.

What bothers me about this whole thing is why the dive on autopilot. Why not just shove the nose over and firewall the throttles and stick it in the dirt. Matt, there is no evidence of fire, but like the 737 and most of the smaller jets, the A320 has no fuel dumps.

Very good possibility.. Once they find the FDR that question will be answered.... They may have been just lucky.. Good chance of it as I do not remember any notations in the news of the smell of jet fuel... Just no fire.

A general question about the flight-by-wire/flight computer logic: shouldnt the flight computer be able detect that the programmed descent will lead to a crash at some point and overrule? It probably would not help in the case when you are headed into mountains but even that could theoretically be considered if the computer has terrain information and GPS location to plot his trajectory..

I always try to be the optimist ....maybe there was smoke and the pilot in the cockpit was trying to make it to El Prat and just passed out....seems a lil fishy with one being locked out of the cockpit and the other can't get back in...This seems to be happening more and more..There needs to be a remote way that operations can open the door.

There used to be a way before 911... As a Line Mechanic prior to 911 I carried a cockpit key... Many times I would respond to an anonymous call from a captain needing to see maintenance only to open his door because he is locked out. One time I was at an outstation with no maintenance headed home from Vacation.. The flight was being delayed and I talked to the captain and asked him what was going on.. He said they were locked out of the cockpit... I pulled out my key ring, and said "Whats The Problem"... No delay, was about to call maintenance, and he got me a free upgrade to first class...

I am thinking more on the line of by satellite...Kinda like you can wireless start your car by cell phone or lock your front door or garage....The request would be sent through operations kinda like On-star.

Look at the table of location, speed, course and altitude below. The colum with the degree symbol is the flight course. It goes from 43 deg to 31 deg to 26 deg and they stays at or near 26 deg. This chance is contemporaneous with the descent.

LOL, but i just checked, and that change of course is normal in that airway. Exactly around 30 minutes after takeoff (some difference maybe because of wind), the course of yesterday flight changed from 42º to 25º~24º. So for me, the plane didnt change course beside of what was expected.

If you're replying to my comments, you're correct. I didn't compare headings to previous flights. It does appear to be a planned heading change. That said, it's interesting (but hardly conclusive of anything) that the turn was at the same time the descent began. The previously mentioned airspeed dip on climbout is unusual...although is simply could be an ATC-requested speed reduction for spacing or traffic.

If that was the case, the entire plane would be hypoxic, including the hypoxic other pilot trying to get into the cockpit door... assuming the source is correct. We shall hear sooner rather than later.

I've never liked the idea of a fly-by-wire computer sending signals to servos or solenoids and jackscrews for controlling any movable control surface for which my life depends in any vehicle. That is the method these days in newer jet airliners, and it has usually proven safe.

However even with older style solid mechanical linkups to movable flight control surfaces, if the airplanes auto-pilot was set in error by dialing in the altitude preset, to descend at 3500-4000 FPM, the auto speed adjustment not to exceed 400 knots, and left unattended for awhile, the 8-minutes to descend through the clouds from 38,000 feet altitude into a mountain could easily go unnoticed by the hapless crew and busy passengers.

Everyone was likely getting adjusted for the short trip at cruise altitude and also perhaps getting acquainted, 8 minutes of distraction is not really that long of time.

offcial news conference reported by CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/26/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/index.htmlit was done on purpose by the copilot, Marriage problems? major family problems ? in either case , its really incomprehendeable to even think about.

This is very sad and shocking. It would appear at this point in time that all 142 souls on board have been lost. It's almost inconceivable that this could happen to a subsidiary of Lufthansa. I think that terrorism will be high on the list of causes.

I'm not sure why this comment is getting down-voted so much. The A320 is an extraordinarily safe plane. While it is not unthinkable, mechanical failures are fortunately unlikely to be the cause.

We like to think of dramatic hijackings or bombings when it comes to terrorism, but given where we are technologically, why not hacking? That would be truly terrorizing -- computer code is much easier to conceal than weaponry, and you don't even have to be on the affected aircraft to ensure its destruction.

A 2,000 fpm descent is quite normal. If you fly, you've almost certainly been in a standard descent at that rate, and 2.500 is not all that unusual for a couple of minutes if a fairly quick altitude change is needed (ATC advising quicker descent for traffic, for example). But multiple minutes above 3,000 fpm, and up to 4,000 might only be called for if there was a severe fire situation or other very major emergency.Though if that's the case, then a course change would typically also be directed, especially 1) knowing the Alps are approaching and 2) Marseilles and other airports are nearby the flightpath. Unless the crew was so focused on the emergency that they failed to aviate as first priority.

What happens if the cause of explosive decompression is the sudden loss of a cockpit window or windscreen at FL 380 ? What are the conditions on the flight deck in a 400 Kn airstream with locked cockpit doors ? What happens if the debris incapacitates one (or both) pilots (I understand the window debris leaves but what about the cockpit contents such as metal-edged Jepp cases) ? How robust is the flight deck emergency oxygen delivery system to flying debris ? What happens on a messed up, fogged up, flight deck if injured or incapacitated pilot(s) manage to start descending to 10000 with zero visibility but terrain is at 11000 ? What was terrain ltitude where the incident started ? Eight minutes at 400 Kn covers a lot of ground.

Understood no parts came off this particular a/c. The reality of this incident is terrifying. Imagine you're the pilot locked out of the flight deck trying to break in and realizing the descent profile. Eight minutes can be a very long time.

Baron- As a kid I was a pax in a DC3/C47 flying in rain and I remember that the windows leaked quite a lot. Those rides around the Islands and the Guianas could be really bumpy. But there were benefits, back then we were allowed to ride in the cockpit.Thanks for the perspective on my speculation, it comes from my nightmares. Sometimes I used to wake up covered in sweat.

Flew through a number of rainstorms on TTA back in the late 60's; just about every window leaked on the DC-3's. But of course you were only a few thousand feet above the ground. I don't remember a door to the cockpit, just a curtain across the aisle.

Too early to answer those questions, but the fact is that most of the plane is in one general area... If a window did blow out, it will be somewhere else.... If a plane brakes up in air, parts are usually spread for miles. Once they get all the parts if it is a window, then they will be one short when they sort things out, but for right now, it appears that everything is in one single crash site... Note the rudder on the American Airlines in Queens NY where "Abrubt rudder inputs broke off the rudder" the rudder was found in Jamaica Bay miles from the crash site.

Single crash/impact site but a lot of relatively small pieces. Just getting them out will take weeks or months and putting the jigsaw puzzle together will take months or years. Hopefully the recorders will provide some answers.

Loss of windscreeen is a biggy. Total chaos, really, and really hard to have any forward viz. The quick-don oxygen masks are each separate, self-contained units on a bracket within reach of the pilot. If you could reach them, they'd work.

Then again its got to be about negative 52 centigrade up there. Even at lower altitudes over the alps at this time of year its cold on the ground and with DALR about 3 degrees per 1000 pilots could be incapacitated by cold instead of hypoxia.

A plane carrying 142 passengers and six crew has crashed in the southern French Alps en route from Spain to Germany. The Airbus A320 disappeared from radar in the Alpes de Hautes Provence after sending a distress signal at 10.47am local time (9.47am GMT).Debris from the jet, operated by Lufthansa's Germanwings budget airline, has been found scattered over a wide area near Barcelonnette.French president Francois Hollande said that he did not expect there to be any survivors. He said: It's a loss, a tragedy which has happened on our soil. 'I am seeking information about homes in the area it came down. It's difficult place to access. In the meantime solidarity must prevail.'